5 ms·

Lobbying is an excellent way for small groups to be heard in political corridors. Lobbying happens in any large democracy and when it is illegal it often happen

Lobbying is an excellent way for small groups to be heard in political corridors. Lobbying happens in any large democracy and when it is illegal it often happens through backdoors creating a chain of unimaginable corruption. It is much better for Intuit and HR Block to openly lobby for complex tax code rather than paying bribes through backdoor. Secondly, why are people re-electing the politicians who suck up to Intuit then ? It is because people do not care as much.

on_and_off 9y ago
You don't explain why it is supposedly better than the alternative.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Lobbying is an excellent way for small groups to be heard in political corridors. “Lobbying” is literally any effort a person or group makes to influence a government decision-maker.
- Karishma1234 9y ago
  So ? Are you saying people or group should not be allowed to influence government decision making ? Do you want your government to do X ? X => Ban Guns/Allow people to bear arms X => Make abortions simple/Ban abortions totally X => Enforce net neutrality/ Let markets handle it Every person will always have a stand on this issue and will try all in his power to influence the government. Would you rather want it to be legal and open or underground black market is the question.
simion314 9y ago
>Secondly, why are people re-electing the politicians who suck up to Intuit then ? In US you have less choices AFAIK, just seen yesterday that one party owns a big TV network and some HNer commented that the other party should also buy a similar big network, there is no consideration that maybe there should me more then 2 choices, from what I see from outside US is that it is impossible to have a 3rd or 4rd option so you have to chose between 2 bad options each cycle. If I am wrong please correct me, again this is how the things appear from us outside US (I never heard of a 3rd party or 3rd president candidate with a real chance)
- humanrebar 9y ago
  In the U.S., the major parties compete with each other. Over the decades, what they actually do varies a lot. As one party has success generally or on particular issues, the other party will adjust to attract voters. Positions held by (relatively) successful third parties are quickly absorbed to some degree by one major party or both. The net result is a weird mishmash of positions on either side of the aisle that no individual would actually choose. It also means disproportionate benefits for things that intensely benefit small portions of the population with mild downsides for the rest. Despite all the concern, the national legislature has been fairly evenly divided over the last 25 years or so, giving control back and forth. This is even more true of the presidency. It's exceptional that a party will hold the presidency for more than two terms of office. All that being said, I do think there could be some national consensus about things with little more explicit horse-trading. I could see a carbon tax passing, for instance, if it were attached to a bill requiring a balanced budget. But no major party could propose something like that without angering its base.
- Amezarak 9y ago
  It's worth keeping in mind that the party system works differently in the US than it does in most other countries. Almost anyone can up and announce they're running as a Republican or a Democrat regardless of their prior actions or current beliefs, and vote however they want with few consequences. Consider that Bernie Sanders was a member of a third party as a senator, but ran as a democrat for president without changing any of his positions. Similarly, Trump had little relation to the modern Republican party and essentially took it over anyway. When Ron Paul, Donald Trump, and John McCain are all in the same party, you're talking about a pretty big tent. In the USA, "parties" are more analogous to coalitions in parliamentary democracies. The party primaries play a tremendous and oft-overlooked role in the actual elections.
  - simion314 9y ago
    Can you explain why do you think the following is not happening in US: A new party is created, as an example, a green party, that is all for green energy, ecology, privacy (just an example) This party could grab 10% then if the other 2 parties are balanced, they would have around 45% each, then the major parties would need support from the small party to pass some laws, for this support the green party would get back some of their ideas implemented. Are there laws or money that block such thing to happen?
mikeash 9y ago
I will vote in the election in November. In each race, I will have (if I’m lucky) a choice between a couple of people who will only get a tiny percentage of the vote, a person from the party who thinks Donald Trump should hold the presidency, and one other person who might possibly win instead of that one. My choice is all but predetermined. The question of which ones suck up to Intuit basically doesn’t come into it.

on_and_off 9y ago

You don't explain why it is supposedly better than the alternative.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Lobbying is an excellent way for small groups to be heard in political corridors. “Lobbying” is literally any effort a person or group makes to influence a government decision-maker.

Karishma1234 9y ago
So ? Are you saying people or group should not be allowed to influence government decision making ? Do you want your government to do X ? X => Ban Guns/Allow people to bear arms X => Make abortions simple/Ban abortions totally X => Enforce net neutrality/ Let markets handle it Every person will always have a stand on this issue and will try all in his power to influence the government. Would you rather want it to be legal and open or underground black market is the question.

simion314 9y ago

>Secondly, why are people re-electing the politicians who suck up to Intuit then ? In US you have less choices AFAIK, just seen yesterday that one party owns a big TV network and some HNer commented that the other party should also buy a similar big network, there is no consideration that maybe there should me more then 2 choices, from what I see from outside US is that it is impossible to have a 3rd or 4rd option so you have to chose between 2 bad options each cycle. If I am wrong please correct me, again this is how the things appear from us outside US (I never heard of a 3rd party or 3rd president candidate with a real chance)

humanrebar 9y ago
In the U.S., the major parties compete with each other. Over the decades, what they actually do varies a lot. As one party has success generally or on particular issues, the other party will adjust to attract voters. Positions held by (relatively) successful third parties are quickly absorbed to some degree by one major party or both. The net result is a weird mishmash of positions on either side of the aisle that no individual would actually choose. It also means disproportionate benefits for things that intensely benefit small portions of the population with mild downsides for the rest. Despite all the concern, the national legislature has been fairly evenly divided over the last 25 years or so, giving control back and forth. This is even more true of the presidency. It's exceptional that a party will hold the presidency for more than two terms of office. All that being said, I do think there could be some national consensus about things with little more explicit horse-trading. I could see a carbon tax passing, for instance, if it were attached to a bill requiring a balanced budget. But no major party could propose something like that without angering its base.
Amezarak 9y ago
It's worth keeping in mind that the party system works differently in the US than it does in most other countries. Almost anyone can up and announce they're running as a Republican or a Democrat regardless of their prior actions or current beliefs, and vote however they want with few consequences. Consider that Bernie Sanders was a member of a third party as a senator, but ran as a democrat for president without changing any of his positions. Similarly, Trump had little relation to the modern Republican party and essentially took it over anyway. When Ron Paul, Donald Trump, and John McCain are all in the same party, you're talking about a pretty big tent. In the USA, "parties" are more analogous to coalitions in parliamentary democracies. The party primaries play a tremendous and oft-overlooked role in the actual elections.
- simion314 9y ago
  Can you explain why do you think the following is not happening in US: A new party is created, as an example, a green party, that is all for green energy, ecology, privacy (just an example) This party could grab 10% then if the other 2 parties are balanced, they would have around 45% each, then the major parties would need support from the small party to pass some laws, for this support the green party would get back some of their ideas implemented. Are there laws or money that block such thing to happen?

mikeash 9y ago

I will vote in the election in November. In each race, I will have (if I’m lucky) a choice between a couple of people who will only get a tiny percentage of the vote, a person from the party who thinks Donald Trump should hold the presidency, and one other person who might possibly win instead of that one. My choice is all but predetermined. The question of which ones suck up to Intuit basically doesn’t come into it.